Say you are replacing a non functioning boiler aged 10 year + with a new energy efficient boiler this would have to be considered like for like as the older boilers are no longer being manufactured. I am assuming that logically they would each have similar outputs.
I don't see anything peculiar about Bronte's opinion. The general rule is that if it's merely a replacement, it's an expense, and if it's an improvement, it's capital.
Boilers tend to be rather functional pieces of equipment and unless your new one has major tangible benefits compared to your old one, it's usually far more likely to be a cost item rather than a capital expenditure than enhances the value of the property.
(By the way, I wouldn't be 100% sure that a boiler can qualify for wear & tear capital allowances on furniture and fittings, as I would see it as a fixture rather than as a fitting. - but I think the point is rather moot here.)
Thanks Bronte, can find discussions where people argue both sides online, would be hoping that your thinking is correct. Maybe I should ring revenue and seek clarification from them?
It's neither furniture nor a fitting. In my view, it's plant/machinery. The existence of the various accelerated capital allowances schemes can also be of assistance. They cover items such as energy efficient boilers. If there are accelerated capital allowances available for certain types of boiler, then logically there should be standard capital allowances available for standard boilers.